User talk:Ilmarine
Edit summary Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing. --Cizagna (Talk) 19:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Multiple line breaks Hi, instead of pressing return multiple times to break the content under the picture, try using as it's clearer and works better at different resolutions. Cheers. //Peet talk | mod 20:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC) :Thanks for the tip, my bad.--ilmarine 21:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC) ::No worries, just trying to help. To force the table of contents to appear above the break, try inserting __TOC__ where you want the table of contents to appear. I've not tried it, but it should work. //Peet talk | mod 21:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC) Monsterpics * I see that you are using actual filenames for some pics (I understand why, when several monsters share the same pic), eg. artwork= . This is going to raise issues when we move to a new template similar to weaponbow, where only the file extension is given. It may seem a waste of space, but I did updload the same file under several names for the bows that shared the same pics. * Using the file extension system makes storing and uploading pics very easy and quick. For the bows, I simply named the files by their figure in the corresponding map (which makes creating the pic files very quick: name is straightforward and short, no need to care about the exact item name, virtually no risk of typos...). Then I created/edited the pages with the new template and ONLY AFTER did I upload the pics: simply clicking on the link created on the page and selecting the appropriate file number on my pc (I simply look at the item record and see that the item is using say graphic 18, then browse to file 18.png on my pc.) The correct filename is automatically filled in by the uploader. Very easy indeed. When an item shares the same pic as an already uploaded one, no need to search the old files to find the existing filename: they share the same graphic file number, so I use the same procedure as above and re-upload 18.png, which is again correctly renamed by the uploader... * By the way, in order to avoid rework, I created some time ago a Monsterpic2 template identical to Monsterpic except for the image field, which is similar to that of the Temp template and only takes the file extension. Go to the template page and select "What links here" to see how and where I've used it so far. * Let's see what Cizagna thinks about all this. ;) --Lirielle 16:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC) ::Eh, ok, I give up my lazyness and will use the same method (using the right name) from now on :) I will go over the whole monster images list first and after that will go through the whole monster category to format and correct everything (+ add relevant info + put everything into the new categories). I think also that before going over the list, I will implement the aggressive info into that template (as seen in User:Cizagna/Sandbox04).--ilmarine 17:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC) :Template sandbox04 i still have my issues to sulk around (for example boowolf is a non aggressive monster but i think in a cave he is aggressive (have to confirm that because i got aggress from him long time ago) so he should be mark aggro while he is not really aggro in lineg) but i have say many times "implement when you want" as for now my concerns is with the weapon box, and add-ons for our wikia, aside from keeping the rush of misleading information. The monster part will be revise later as categories have become more in game base yet the way they have been order its caotic and mostly redundant in some cases but for now keep as it goes will see later what to do. :The pictures names between other things is to avoid a possible change in amaknas where they separate the pictures, for example the there is a tofu pictures and near the minotoror pictures its another tofu pictures there is a big chance thats the "trow tofu" picture a summon from the minotoror that in the futures it can be change, if its going to be change that i dont know, also having separate images avoids massive vandals how? well user xxxxx decides that he has a better picture of the male pandawa so he uploads it and all the monsters, npcs that use the pandawa picture basically gets vandalize and once revert it may take some time to the server to change the cache of the vandalize pages by a simple edit (and that i still dont like the idea of the NPC using their artwork picture when they are very commonly use and lacks uniqueness, but same as monster will see later).--Cizagna (Talk) 02:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Aggressive: As I have stated many time before, I would like this "quick visual reference" (colored border) to be as unobtrusive and as easy to understand as possible. We could, of course, have 5 or 6 different borders (non-aggro, aggros bonta, aggros brak, may aggro, etc), but this would get unnessecarily complicated as the border is just meant to be the quickest reference. We add the border to any monster that could aggro in any situation (so, for example, your moowolf would be aggro) and further explain the reasoning and/or or aggro conditions in the leading paragraph of the text. The only other option of clarifying it even further, would be to add the small remark "Warning: This monster may be aggressive!" (and possibly even "See text for details"). This wouldn't add much more visual clutter but on the other hand, it would push the characteristics down even further. Imagenames: Yes, I will from now on use the exact monster names, and will fix the ones uploaded under wrong names later on. Also, if no monster art is present (as seems to be the case more and more), I will later take the standing sprite and use that one (or the correct artwork if I think it has been mislabeled). Later, if Ankama changes it, we can easily fix it because I have made backups of every swf directory and can easily compare their contents (for this I suggest Total Commander, Lirielle). Categories: I think we should implement the official categorization system with some minor additions (for example cave gobball and gobkool are both only cave monsters, but i also added them under gobballs because that's where people will most probably look). Again, as I have stated before, I will go over the list of monsters one by one after I'm done with the BigSWFList and try to fix everything. NPCs: Let's first get over monsters/items/resources/etc and then turn to NPCs, because that will be a completely different work (we should also make available the relevant or colorful information they give out in their dialogue, etc).--ilmarine 10:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Monster category This comment is moved here from Kishou's talk page: Please don't take away the monster category from monster pages (as you did with koalaks). Otherwise, they won't show up in the big monster list.--ilmarine 08:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC) You don't add parent category when it's already in a subcategory. --Kishou 08:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC) :The whole point of the big monster list is to have all monsters in one place. This will come especially handy when after finishing the images I will go over all of them to correct any possible errors. Besides, every monster (well 99,5%) has the monstery category.--ilmarine 08:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC) :: That's not how wiki's category system is supposed to work. You create subcategories when the category contains too many entries and becomes harder to navigate because "when there are more than 200 entries in a category, only 200 are displayed on the screen and users have to click through multiple screens to see all the entries." See Wikipedia:Categorization. Wiki is supposed to be edited for the convenience of the readers, not editors. ::Please remove all "Category:monster"" from articles that are already in a subcategory of the monster category such as Category:Kitsous and Category:Bworks --Kishou 09:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC) :::Yes, I understand. But the point of the monster category is to have a complete monster list. The other categories we are starting to use (and which you can see on monster page) are the official categories. So, basically category monster is for our own use and subcategories are the ones that are meant for public consumption, if you will. All in all, people most probably any way use search and individual location pages (which currently are badly lacking) more.--ilmarine 09:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC) :::As for your current request, I'm sorry, but I want to see what other users and admins think. I'm sure they will probably notice this discussion and will put their word in. We have both stated our lines of reasoning and until some sort of an official verdict we should both try to stay away from adding or removing the main monster category on monster pages.--ilmarine 09:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC) ::::Take a look at Wikipedia:Category:Baseball players. There are only a handful of baseball player articles in this category because most of baseball player articles are already in a subcategory of the category Baseball players. You are abusing "Category:monster" for your own convenience while disregarding the original use of category, which is to improve the ease of navigation for readers. Most monster articles on Dofus wikia also didn't belong in both the parent monster category and a subcategory. It looks like you are the one who added most of them recently. --Kishou 09:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC) :::Yes, I have been adding the monster category to every page I modify when adding the images (most monsters actually already own it) and every stub I create. To say that I am responsible for populating the monster category is, however, completely wrong. Already before I started my quest for completing and reformatting the monster list, the monster category contained almost two pages of monsters (that's ca 400 entries).--ilmarine 09:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC) ::::No they didn't. At least not when I created some of the earliest monster subcategories. http://dofus.wikia.com/index.php?title=Category:Rats&action=history http://dofus.wikia.com/index.php?title=Category:Larva&action=history Even if they did, that is still wrong and contrary to the original use of wiki category which is to improve the ease of navigation for the readers. Also take a look at Category:Item. You don't see here any articles that are aleady in a subcategy of the category Item such as Category:Boots and Category:Bread. Are you going to add Category:Item to thousands of articles in its subcategories? --Kishou 09:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Let me summarize the points: ilmarine argues that monster articles should belong in both the category "monster" and one of its specie specific subcategories such as Category:Rats and Category:Larva because it is "handy when after finishing the images ilmarine will go over all of them to correct any possible errors." I think that such a use of category is an abuse, that an article that is already in a subcategory of a parent category should not be listed under the parent category as well. Reasons are as follows: #Subcategory is a system of wiki that is used when a category contains too many entries and becomes hard for the readers to navigate through. That is because "when there are more than 200 entries in a category, only 200 are displayed on the screen and users have to click through multiple screens to see all the entries" (see Wikipedia:Categorization). #Wiki is supposed to be edited for the convenience of the readers, not editors. Subcategory is one of the tool to improve the ease of navigation for the readers. It should not be abused for the convenience of the editors. #For example, in the category Baseball player on the English Wikipedia, there are only a handful of baseball player articles because most of them are already in a subcategory of it such as Category:19th century baseball players. Also, the Category:Item on Dofus Wikia lists no articles that are already in a subcategory of it such as Category:Boots and Category:Bread. I don't see why only the category Monster should be an exception just for the convenience of a particular editor. --Kishou 10:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC) ::I was trying to make up an example of the usufulness of the big monster list and managed to create one without wanting to. There is a monster called Emeralda who is officially in the category Category:Cave Monsters. However, trying to come up with a possible scenario when the user doesn't remember the exact name, I was for a moment thinking that the monster was actually called Emeraldine (this is especially bizarre because I was the one who created this stub). Now, when you try to search for Emeraldine, you won't get any results. And I myself (if I didn't know already) could not have thought of a category where this monster could be (the official category Cave Monsters is not very to the point, but neither can I think of a more descriptive category). So, the only way I actually found Emeralda was by browsing through the monster list. ::However, if the consensus finds that the monster category is not needed, I am prepared to remove it from every monster page, when I go over the list after uploading the images. Until that time I would kindly request that the category was not removed, because it would later make my task harder. (Or if the opposite consensus is reached, I will go over all the pages in subcategories and ones using monsterpic template and add that category.)--ilmarine 10:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC) :::If you want a big list, then create one like this. I don't think category should be used for anything other than what it was made for originally. I'm only going with the commonly followed standard here. Wikipedia is a hugely popular website and many people are already familiar with the system. That's one big merit of adopting Wikia system. Unless absolutely necessary, I don't think it's a good idea to make special uses like that because they only confuse other editors. --Kishou 10:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Monster categories - New food for thought Categorization is under study. I'd say that basically both of you are correct. Yes, categories should be used to facilitate navigation and not to get day-long lists. I already raised a similar point when working on NPCs some time ago: I could'nt see the point of having lists of 200+ elements when the screen only displays 200 at a time and therefore created subcategories by region. This being said, it doesn't mean that higher-level categories ("Monster") should not be included. If we were to strictly follow you, Kishou, in the current state of categorization (which is being reconsidered - see the links below) even the Gobballs page should not belong to the Monster category, but to a Creatures from the fields category, which in turn would belong to Monster. If you want to navigate through monsters in such a structure and are viewing the White Gobbly page, you need to click through to the Gobballs page, then the Creatures from the fields page, and finally to the Monster page before drilling down into other branches. When you have a complex hierarchy, with several levels of subcategories, the ability of seeing all top-level and intermediate categories can contribute to a quick and swift navigation, allowing you to navigate directly to any node in the hierarchy. So I'd say, yes, include all higher-levels. But then, it will be helpful only if we design a way to efficiently use them. I have several solutions in mind, but they need to be discussed. As you know, this wikia has been going through a huge overhaul the last weeks, with lots of additions and improvements, but the process is huge and long. Ilmarine (images) and other wikians are helping a lot on additions, while Cizagna (templates) and others are busy with quality improvements, but the latter will occur stepwise and we cannot commit to all things at the same time. So, basically, the conclusion would be not to remove categories for the moment while they are under study. It will be easier to delete unnecessary categories than to reinstate them if they prove to be useful after thought. If Ilmarine feels fit to add Category:Monster to all monster pages, I have no objection at the moment (and there is no reason and not point in accusing him of doing so for his own convenience) Before we decide on how to use the categories, you are welcome to take part in the discussion about the hierarchy itself: what subcategories should we use? See the Talk:Monster page and my draft User:Lirielle/MonsterCategories page for what is only the very start of this brainstorming. (Which I suggest we continue on the Dofus:Community Portal) --Lirielle 10:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC) :"Creatures from the fields" is not a category. Nor do I think it's a good candidate for a new category. Even if it were a category, it would still be only a different type of subcategory under the same parent category "Monster." The article Gobball could belong in both "Creatures from the fields" and "Gobball" as much as the article "Babe Ruth" belongs in subcategories "Major league right fielders" and "New York Yankees players," or the article "Citrus Daggers" belongs in subcategories "Fire weapons" and "Drain weapons." (You could also create mid subcategories "Monsters by specie" and "Monsters by habitat" just like "Category:Equipment by effects.") That an article could belong in two or more subcategories is different from that a category belongs in a subcategory and its parent category at the same time. --Kishou 11:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC) ::It was meant to be a subcategory, but this was reconsidered as I said. This is partly the reason for the new discussion about categories. --Lirielle 11:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC) :The issue with this categories first its to know what categorization system we are going follow, Amaknas or a more wise one. Amakna has a odd or strange way on categorizing monsters, as many monsters would fit the humanoid one but are on the monsters of the night unless we manage humanoid as a mid category and monsters of the night like a minor sub category of that. What we could do is like weapons categorizing system that the main one is to follow Amaknas categorize system and then create an alternate category by types, where it would be a more wise one. Or viceverse method as like i said before Amaknas categorization its odd and strange to follow, following our own path and giving a folkloric note on each monster stating for example this is Tofu considerate a creature of the night. For that we will sue the page creature of the night as a page and list all the monsters that could follow in this category but really not categorizing, thought keeping track that those list are correct will be hard. Just one of many ideas but i have not give a very deep thought as i have stated in other related conversations. And if the 2 parties agree, all this could be move or quote or be future's handle in the Dofus:Community Portal/Ordering of Categories as this info would be useful for when i start doing the categories policy as will base mostly on that page and the information i can remember--Cizagna (Talk) 16:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)